Top Law Schools

This is a long clip but definitely proves and provides some good info. Only 125 above 170.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce ... tube_gdata

first thing I will argue is that he mentions that any item that favored blacks was removed basically saying the items that did not favor them are left in (I kno LR fail but work with me). This leads to the argument that the test is created for a certain group and is easier for hem to score well. The test is still predictive for minority success relative to other minorities however. ThatS why there are different score bands for different groups in admissions.

ogman05 wrote:This is a long clip but definitely proves and provides some good info. Only 125 above 170.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce ... tube_gdata

first thing I will argue is that he mentions that any item that favored blacks was removed basically saying the items that did not favor them are left in (I kno LR fail but work with me). This leads to the argument that the test is created for a certain group and is easier for hem to score well. The test is still predictive for minority success relative to other minorities however. ThatS why there are different score bands for different groups in admissions.

Maybe they should put some football terms in there.

ogman05 wrote:This is a long clip but definitely proves and provides some good info. Only 125 above 170.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce ... tube_gdata

first thing I will argue is that he mentions that any item that favored blacks was removed basically saying the items that did not favor them are left in (I kno LR fail but work with me). This leads to the argument that the test is created for a certain group and is easier for hem to score well. The test is still predictive for minority success relative to other minorities however. ThatS why there are different score bands for different groups in admissions.

Maybe they should put some football terms in there.

ETS does not do GMAT. GMAC does GMAT. Not that this is a huge point, just comes directly after him pointing out misleading sections of the NYT article.

Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.

The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....

I like the part about high high-scoring URMs are faught over. ... Feelin' good!

farewelltoarms wrote:Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.

The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....

I have doubts about the ability to ri of the LSAT anytime soon. He does state that it is the best predictor. Even tho only 16% without it there would only be like 4% with ugpa. So I'm doubting to see that go. But if it did... Well maybe the kayaks were onto somehing. Haha

farewelltoarms wrote:Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.

The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....

Just finished as well. Crazy. But I think if the ABA decides to remove that section of the rules, LSAC will become a nonprofit org like ETS and Tier 1 schools will still use it. Why would you get rid of a test that offers such a high level of predictability?

Mattalones wrote:I like the part about high high-scoring URMs are faught over. ... Feelin' good!

Yea I liked that too. Went to sleep last night feelin pretty good. Haha

holydonkey wrote:

farewelltoarms wrote:Wow watched whole vid pretty interesting.

The very bit at the end, getting rid of the lsat? Omgz, that would be crazy. I can't even how law schools would choose between applicants.....

Just finished as well. Crazy. But I think if the ABA decides to remove that section of the rules, LSAC will become a nonprofit org like ETS and Tier 1 schools will still use it. Why would you get rid of a test that offers such a high level of predictability?

Exactly my point. Without this it would got back to how it was pre-1940's with elite UG's. They would need some other measure of performance. After hearing him talk I am convinced that there is a bias inherent within the test. Although it is predictive, URM's do worse on average. He even mentioned that there was an item that urms distinctively did better on. If the entire test were made up of these "items" wouldnt it jsut change the playing field and make it more level. Then non-urms would be getting boosted. haha. Now understanding why the lsat has such little predictive quality for urms when compared to other nonurms makes sense. a 150 become a 155 or 160. A 160 a 165 or 170. Makes sense.

Almost every test discriminates in favor of the group(s) that created them (even the IQ test show major discrepencies amongst races and social groups).

I think the LSAT is perhaps one of the best things for law schools and law school applicants. How else would a graduate of an UG ranked 50-100 compete with the Ivy League for TLS?

Not looking to start an AA debate, but doesn't AA make up for some of this discrepency? The admissions process is set up so that qualified URMs can get into quality schools, even with a lower LSAT than their non-URM peers. It essentially evens out in the end.

Maybe the LSAT has a bias and maybe it doesnt. In the end though, it tests you on logic, and logic is universal. What would this guy (or anyone else) propose as an alternative?

romothesavior wrote:Not looking to start an AA debate, but doesn't AA make up for some of this discrepency? The admissions process is set up so that qualified URMs can get into quality schools, even with a lower LSAT than their non-URM peers. It essentially evens out in the end.

Maybe the LSAT has a bias and maybe it doesnt. In the end though, it tests you on logic, and logic is universal. What would this guy (or anyone else) propose as an alternative?

I'm not saying that the system does not already compensate for the discrepancy. All that I am saying is that a lot of people want to start debates with the premise that some races as a whole are smarter. You see it a lot. Logic may be universal but that fact that there was a logic item that favored urm's and blacks in particular as said in the film shows that the logic can be written in a way to be beneficial to a particular group. While still being logic and "universal" as you stay, it can still be made biased towards or against other groups. This item was eliminated because it did not follow the statistical level of history that is already established for the test. thats all. When they make the test they jsut want it similar to past tests so you can compare someone who took it 3 year ago to someone who took it last administration on the same level.

in class but will watch later-

can someone give me some cliff notes?

tl;dw

The fat kid in me got distracted by the "FREE CHIPOTLE!" note on board behind the Professor.

Still watching....it's long!

Zapatero wrote:tl;dw

True it is long but has a lot of good material in it. I will cliff it together later as the first time I watched it I was going to bed and didnt give my full attention and only pulled out a few interesting chunks. what I can remember for now is was he wrote on the board and the one point I was arguing;

-The video was based around low amounts of AA matriculants to law school. In a given year I beleive he said about 10,000 take the lsat and/or apply

-He said that 125 if that, and he'd be kind and said 150 AA's score above a 170 in a given year. Also 250 score above 160 for a total of 400 AA's that score above 160 and he was favoring the number as he couldnt remember. So obviously a small pool to pick from. We already know this but it was interesting to see someone who worked for lsac and was dean at a T25 law school to say this. He gave the lectur at UVA.

-The point I am mentioning a lot is that he mentions the quesitons as "items" on the lsat. And there was an item that they pulled that "clearly" as he said favored AA's. they removed it from the test when their statisticians ran the numbers and found this. The point I am making is that if the whole test was like this it would favor AA's just as the test right now favors non urms. This to me is evidence the test is biased by the creators. Probably not intentionally. maybe though.

-He also mentions where the test came from and why it was created. Basically before the lsat applicants were based solely on UGPA only and after the war when there was an increase in applicants from all sorts of schools a standardized test was made to compare a princeton to an unknown public.

-He admits/claims that no one knows why urms do poor on the test as a whole and that he would have the nobel prize if he could answer this.

Other than that watch for yourself if you managed to read this. It is 40 mins long but is nice as there is not too much direct information from the source(LSAC) on this stuff.

disclaimer: Dont quote me on any of this because I watched this days ago and I am basing it off loose memory.

YESLawSchool2013 wrote:The fat kid in me got distracted by the "FREE CHIPOTLE!" note on board behind the Professor.

Still watching....it's long!

lol.. i saw that too.

I was only partially serious. It's definitely interesting, but I'll have to watch it in pieces. Thanks for posting it.

Zapatero wrote:I was only partially serious. It's definitely interesting, but I'll have to watch it in pieces. Thanks for posting it.

I figured..
my post was more a response to tall boy

Some interesting discussion of law school admissions in general.

The fact about how the gap between URM and white LSAT scores exists among all income levels was interesting to me.

I loved learning that the LSAT is 16% predictive and UGPA is only 4% predictive.

holydonkey wrote:I loved learning that the LSAT is 16% predictive and UGPA is only 4% predictive.

I forgot about that part. That was interesting as well. Previous credentials only account for 20% prediction. Crapshoot if you ask me. haha

ogman05 wrote:

holydonkey wrote:I loved learning that the LSAT is 16% predictive and UGPA is only 4% predictive.

I forgot about that part. That was interesting as well. Previous credentials only account for 20% prediction. Crapshoot if you ask me. haha

wow this video blew my mind....thanks.

have a lot to think about

Okay, 16% predictability. Posters in here seem to think it is more like 90% ... First questions is, "Who do I believe?"

A) People who buy into the "meritocracy" aspect of legal education due to recent exposure to stratification by LSAT (most TLS posters including me)
B) Former president of LSAC who has seen large amounts of data on the tests predictability
C) Aliens
D) The argument is circular
E) If Carl's Jr were delicious, then the $6.00 burger would actually cost $6.00

I was stuck on this question for a while, but then realized that the argument did not assume its premises, so (D) was out. Aliens seemed like a tempting scapegoat, but they weren't mentioned in the stimulus, so (C) was out; same reasoning for (E). That left just (A) and (B). To decide, I thought that I should ask the people on TLS for help, but then I realized that would cause (A) to be circular, so it was out. This left (B) as the only remaining answer; looks good at this point. Worried that this might be an inappropriate appeal to authority, I slapped myself because this guy's people made/make the LSAT.

But really though: If the 16% correlation only holds up when a full range (120-180) is at a school, but no school actually has that, then they were comparing people's grades at different schools. So, the Harvard people (with their 171-176 middle 50%) are compared to Washburn U people (with their 151-158 middle 50%).

Put aside for the moment that at least 84% of LS performance is due to what actually happens in LS, let's think about this comparison for a sec. Even though most people at places like Washburn U have mid 150s on the LSAT, there will still be an upper 25% with good grades. Also, even though most people at places like Harvard have mid 170s on the LSAT, there will still be a lower 25% with crappy grades. Generalize that across all the law schools, and you'll notice a trend where you'll see people with high LSAT scores forced into having low grades by a curve system, and you'll see people with low LSAT scores forced into high grades by curved grading.

Obviously, there are going to be a good percentage of people who deserve the grades they get; we're not talking about them, though. Some Harvard kids will come in with a 173 but get POWNED at HLS, not b/c he/she wasn't capable, but b/c HLS's curve is made from HLS students. Also, some from Washburn will come in with a 153 and POWN that LS, not because he/she was super capable, but b/c that curve had only Washburn students on it. ... point is, you can't make valid claims based on performance comparisons across LSs. If you correlate 1L performance to LSAT performance from 120-180 like LSAC does, then you have to compare across LSs. So, their claims about 16% correlation lose some validity. ... Over typing now.

P.S. USA v Switzerland was an awesome hockey game today